Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00054)

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

The Logic of "Personal Gods" -- is there another ?

Dear Friends and M :

Let me say that I offer this strictly on my own, and based on my own
study, but it is not unique as most philosophers who are not also
religionists will offer the same conclusions.

It is a matter of self-proving and will take independence,
persistence, impartiality and time. All reliance has to be placed
solely on your own work.

Let us take at the outset the basis advanced by all organized or
disorganized Religions: Their GOD is omnipresent -- omnipotent and
omniscient. Present everywhere, can do anything, and is aware of all
that goes on - no secrets.

If so why are "priests" needed ? Why does His religion need to be
organized at all.

By original fiat everything is right as it is, and should be. And God
does not need or heed "advice." If so, then why the conflicts between
religions? Do they all say the same thing, using different words ?
Why is it that "religionists" declare "war" (Holy or otherwise) on
each other?

This is the process as I see it: Choose to study any religion that is
in operation in any part of the world, perhaps some religion other
than one's own to begin with.

Trace for yourselves the developing in various religions of the
Personal God idea. Put them in parallel columns as H P B did for
Jesus, Krishna and Gautama-Buddha in ISIS UNVEILED Vol. 2, pp. 537-8.

Start with the ORIGINAL TEXTS of any religion chosen, and then make
sure the are accurately translated into English, (if you are using
English as a medium for study), and follow their changes as time
passes. But you have to do that work to assure yourself of the
actuality of what others have discovered by independent research, let
us also give thanks to Theosophy for again making this clear to all
who read. Read ISIS UNVEILED as you might read a report on antiquity
(our own) and see it displayed there. I recommend using that as a
starting point as it is most useful to develop the impartiality and
the accuracy needed.

It is the priesthood that makes all the changes.

Originally they are thought to be necessary, as philosophers, and as
honest transmitters in succession to the original Prophet or reformer.
And we find that the early ones usually are disinterested, but as time
passes, one finds that dissentions arise in interpretation.
Authoritarianism arises. And then, the lack of self-interest changes
and gradually fades out. We then notice that the leadership of
philosophers changes into the authority of a priesthood, the members
of which begins to claim special privileges and authority. One of
these claims is to be noticed: it is the most insidious -- it is the
one by which direct relations with "a Personal God" are insisted on.

The definitions of the "Personal God: change [use any set of
definitions you want here -- Vengeful, Furious, Tribal, Whimsical,
Indifferent, Personal God]. And when no response occurs to prayers or
petitions, they say "Sorry, God in his infinite Wisdom, doesn't want
to change anything. However, be comforted, we are all subject to His
Will."

One will however find that the origin of every religion was a reform
movement seeking to bring the people of those ancient times back to
some kind of primitive IDEAL. We ought to try and discover how and
why those primitive ideals were framed. Then, what are the ORIGINAL
SCRIPTURES written that described them. What did the reformer, or
Prophet, or Messenger, originally and actually do ?

Since every priesthood exists on the "gifts" made to them to be
transferred to a non-existent and quite illogical and non-provable
"Personal God," this secret is usually protected by anathemas directed
at members of the flock against pursuing such an investigation.
Excommunication (or worse forms of coercion) are the final stages of
separating a questioner from the body of "believers." Do they know,
or do they accept others' claims to know ?

Check and you will find that questioning by individuals is uniformly
discouraged, or side-tracked by all organized religions.. Truly,
without exceptions, all popular religions can be seen to be examples
of a wonderful but sly and devious con business. They take advantage
of man's trust, faith, and hopes and abuse those. Man's hopes and
aspirations are made into the traps that catch and bind him. Why ?
Every member of any religion ought to consider it their duty to look
into the antecedents of that faith and the way it is currently
expressed and practised. The difference will be enlightening. There
is no reason why this ought not to be done as "God" has not prohibited
such investigation of His Truth. Or has He ? Who says so ?

So it is mankind that makes the changes, and, as in a vast con game,
foists them on the gullible and the lazy who will not think for
themselves, or delve into the history of their religion, or even ask
why things are as they are.

We can only indite ourselves.

You may qualify, or classify your opinions anyway you want, this does
not detract from any straightforward approach to the problem.

Best wishes,

Dallas

PS

If any "Personal God" had any real plenary or executive power then all
other religions would have long ago been eliminated.

All agnostics and atheists would also have been eliminated.

Since this is not so, what conclusions are we left with ?

======================



-----Original Message-----
From: M
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:06 AM
To:
Subject: re Personal God/s

Dallas wrote:

<<Looking at the question of God --
theosophically, can we not say: 1. The God Idea is
derived from the ABSOLUTE which antecedes
everything else ? Like SPACE it is everywhere and
surrounds us all, and, as far as we can imagine it links us
all with the infinitudes of origin as well as of present
extensiveness ?>>>

"Absolute," in some sense, instead of "Oneness," in
some sense ... Whatever. I had in mind the time,
whenever that was (a few years ago?), when notions
about religion and God were in their beginning stages.

<<I can find no reasonable way by which such an
arbitrary entity or force as defined in "personal Gods"
may exist in a Universe of LAW.>>

Dallas, I wonder if you might have that sort of partly
reversed, in a sense: I suspect that "personal God/s" is
something that's possible in a universe of laws (in
conventional terms, at any rate) because such a universe,
and the laws that go with it, are dualistic, exoteric,
karmic, mayavic, and so make for a fertile ground for
things like "personal God/s" ... Whereas the Esoteric
Tradition, as I see it, offers a "b/Broader" perspective
that transcends "personal/temporal" ...

<<Since the time when the existence of any Personal
God has been challenged, why do these challenges and
challengers continue to live -- assuming the "God" is all
powerful, and is often depicted as vengeful ? Also,
assuming that "life" in this world is an unmixed
benefit.>>

Apparently there are various kinds of "Personal God/s,"
depending on who you talk to ...

Speculatively,

M